For the white knights to consider: if having women in positions of authority (such as teaching) in the Church is ok then having a seminary where the staff is 100% women should be the best step towards progress and greater inclusiveness and participation of women. But if it isn't, why not?

Not that I expect the white knights to be able to think coherently about this.

ACTION ITEM!
On that note, because of the awful confusion that we have experience over the last week, I ask you all earnestly to pray the classic Act of Reparation that the great Pius XI released in 1928 in Miserentissimus Redemptor.

Established back in the high days of Roman pretensions, when Pius IX thought he could legislate such matters to the Church Universal. Is it uncontroversial to say that (apostolic) Christians have always believed that the Theotokos has a special relationship to the Church? Is the same true of St. Joseph?

During this speech, which he addressed to the Synod Fathers, Francis made clear that at the end of the Synodal process, he intended to pronounce authoritatively: "the synodal process culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, who is called upon to pronounce as "pastor and teacher of all Christians," not based on his personal convictions but as a supreme witness of “totius fides Ecclesiae” (the whole faith of the Church), of the guarantor of obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ and to the Tradition of the Church."

Several points, not directly in response to the above:
1. Where does the synodal process, as it is outlined by Pope Francis, in evidence during the first millenium? (Reception or non-reception of canons is not the same as making a pronouncement.)
2. Some have distinguished an (extraordinary) synod from an ecumenical council -- I saw a link to one such article, but I can't find it at the moment. I won't attempt to guess what is says.
3. Even if the synod is more of a consultative body, the pope is still claiming to exercise his own ministry over the Church Universal with the apostolic exhortation (even if it is of a lower authority than other papal documents). Even if he has the authority to do so, what can He do but witness to the unchanging Tradition of the Church with respect to "Faith and morals"? As for being a universal pastor, especially over other bishops and their clergy, the practical, prudential, and legal limits of this may be in dispute.

Related:
NCReg: ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church
REGISTER EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Burke says a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, ‘by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.’
by CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE

Perhaps this test case, which comes from me and not Faggioli, helps make the point: Should women be admitted into the sanctuary and be allowed to exercise liturgical ministry? There was a prohibition of this before Vatican II. But now women are acolytes, lectors, commentators, cantors, lay Eucharistic ministers, and so forth.

Let this change be emblematic of the many changed relationships brought about by the council. The move, broadly speaking, is from authoritarian subordination to (at least increased) collaboration and dialogue. The unreformed liturgical practice that overemphasizes clergy over laity, and lay men over lay women (only boys can be servers) made perfect sense in the larger context of authoritarian subordination in other aspects of the church’s life. The church then related to the modern world and secular states in a stance of privileged superiority (or sought to). Same with Catholic truth and other positions – error has no rights and religious liberty is rejected. Ecumenism? Heretics and schismatics are called back to the one true church, which already possesses within itself all the unity intended by the Lord Jesus. True equality between men and women, between husband and wife? No, not really.

Peters focuses on one school of weighing papal documents; he does not think (as I do) that the problem is with the practice of the bishop of Rome frequently promulgating his opinion (regardless of authoritative weight) apparently to the Church Universal. It's a feature of the modern papacy, not present in the first millenium.

The slow decline of the Ordinary Magisterium by Edward N. Peters
I think many in the Church have been slipping into associating the noun “Magisterium” with the adjective “infallible” and assuming that, if some papal/episcopal assertion is not “infallible” then it is not “magisterial”.

"The notion of a bazaar is that form of vendition in which things of the least possible value are sold at the greatest possible price, by those who most want to get rid of them to those who least want to acquire them, for charitable purposes.

The efficient cause of a bazaar is the parish priest, and the more efficient he is, the more bazaars he has. The material cause of a bazaar is all unwanted objects, such as photograph frames, pincushions and Japanese screens. The formal cause of a bazaar is that you can't think of any excuse for evading the formality. The final cause is the wiping off of the Church debt. This is the end of all bazaars, having no end itself.

It is asked whether it is permissible to hold parish bazaars. And at first sight, it appears not. The first reason is taken from the principle that it is not lawful to do evil in order that good may come. But to sell anything for more than it is worth is an evil. Ergo... And again, St Paul tells us that charity is not inflated: now 'to be able' follows 'to be'; therefore it is repugnant that charity, not being itself inflated, should inflate prices. Ergo...

The second reason is taken from the principle that nothing is vendible except what is desired by the buyer as a good. Now the buyer desires a good either under the species of the useful or the beautiful. But that the things sold at bazaars are not useful is clear from the terms of the definition, and that they are not beautiful is clear from contemplation of the things themselves. For the senses are not deceived over their proper objects. And from another point of view, it may be argued that the things bought at bazaars are never either used or exposed as beautiful: they are kept in a back room and sold at the next bazaar. And this process will go on ad infinitum. But the concrete infinity is not found in reality.

The third is taken from Scripture, from that passage to wit where the holy Apostles say that it is not right for them to serve tables. Now a stall at a bazaar partakes in some way of the nature of a table; a priest therefore, may not serve a stall at a bazaar, nor cause others to serve at it, for he who acts through another acts in his own person.

Sed contra: Fr Sims is holding a parish bazaar.

It must be replied therefore to the first point, that no injustice can be done to one who knows it and wills it. And everyone who goes to a bazaar knows that he is being defrauded and also wills it - not directly, indeed, but per accidens, in order to avoid greater evils, such as a personal appeal for donations. And also, St Paul tells us that charity endures all things; it is evident therefore that it must endure even a parish bazaar.

To the second, that a thing may be useful to its owner not in so far as he applies it to himself, but in so far as he applies it to another. For an arrow is useful to its owner only when he applies it to another, not to himself. It is useful, therefore, to possess a photograph frame which you can hand over to the next parish bazaar. And that this process is infinite is not true; for the frame will fall to pieces sooner or later, and all the sooner in proportion as it is a bad frame.

To the third, it must be replied that a stall at a bazaar does not fall under the definition of a table, but under the definition of a tent. And St Paul made tents. Now he who wills the means, wills the end; St Paul, therefore, in willing that tents should be made, willed that they should be used. And again, Scripture says that we ought not to muzzle a Knox...

Written by Ronald Knox in May 1924 and published in "In Three Tongues", 1959, Chapman & Hall.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

The current Roman order uses Ps. 88 on Fridays. The mood of this psalm is totally different than that of all the other ones. While Pss. 4, 31, 91, and 134 express confidence and trust in God’s guidance, Ps 88. definitely does not. It is a lamentation and a petitionary prayer, rather in terms of desperation than in terms of hope.

In my eyes (and in the eyes of all scholars I know on that point), the meaning of Compline in the old monastic tradition is to express and practice imperturbable confidence in contemplation of death (sleep being an image of death of course). Ps. 88 can be seen as an imitation of Christ’s despair on the cross (cf. Mt 27:46 and Ps 22:1). One might argue that this is exactly why this psalm is a good choice for a Christian night prayer on Friday, but I would argue that this is not what Compline is about. Reading Ps. 88 transforms Compline into something it was not meant to be: it turns from a rite of peace, silence, and confidence into a late-medieval affective and almost painful imitatio crucis (imitation of the cross). And this does not even fit with General Instruction no. 88 which claims for Compline on weekdays that “psalms are chosen which are full of confidence in the Lord.”

The Church of England adopted most of the Roman cycle for Compline, but not on Fridays: They prefer Ps. 139 (and I think they had good reason).

Especially (but not only) in Easter season I would strongly suggest not saying Ps. 88 at Compline. What do you think?

CWR Blog: The law before ‘Amoris’ is the law after
Those who think Francis' apostolic exhortation has cleared a path to the Communion rail for Catholics in irregular marriages are hearing words that the pope (whatever might be his personal inclinations) simply did not say.
April 10, 2016 04:14 EST
Edward N. Peters

Copyright Notice

For the sake of CYA, in case I use this material elsewhere in the future:

This website and its content, unless otherwise stated or provided with an acknowledgment of its source, is copyright by T. Chan. All rights reserved.

This blog is intended to help those who are in pursuit of truth and knowledge as I delve into philosophical and theological inquiries, and to solicit reactions, comments, criticisms, and clarifications. Nonetheless, I would ask that you if you seek to use the material presented here in a published form other than the Internet, please contact me either by leaving a comment on the relevant post or by sending an e-mail. Thank you!